the role of social entrepreneurship in poverty reduction · social entrepreneurship refers to the...
TRANSCRIPT
Journal of Business and Tourism Volume 04 Number 01
January – June, 2018
Sultan, Ahmad, Khan & Rahman 159 ISSN: 2520 - 0739
The Role of Social Entrepreneurship in Poverty Reduction
DR. FAHAD SULTAN
Assistant Professor, Institute of Business Studies and Leadership
Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan
JUNAID AHMAD
MBA Research Scholar, Institute of Business Studies and Leadership
Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan
ASAD SARFARAZ KHAN
Lecturer and PhD Scholar, Institute of Business Studies and Leadership
Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan
RAZA UR RAHMAN
PhD Scholar, Institute of Business Studies and Leadership
Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan
Abstract
The key aim of the study was to investigate the role of social entrepreneurship in poverty
alleviation in district Mardan. The researcher studied previous investigations, associated
with this study earlier while adopting the study method. To find out the specific objectives
of the study, the researcher followed quantitative method, based on the past study of
Chebbi (2016), and data was collected through questionnaire. The questionnaire was a
developed questionnaire from the study of Ali and Ali, (2013).The questionnaire was
distributed to 200 social entrepreneurs providing their services in different local and
international NGOs, social welfare foundations operating in district Mardan. In
response, a total of 150 questionnaires were received, the response rate was 75%. It is a
good response rate. In which 68.7% were male while the percentage of female
respondents were 31.3. In which the percentage of age group under 20 were 2%, from
20-30 their percentage were 64.7, while the percentage of the respondents with 31-40
age group were 16.7, and the age group from 41 to 50 their percentage were 12.7. While
the age of the respondents above 50 were of 4.0%.In the total 150 of the respondents,
there were 55.3% single respondents while 43.7% were married respondents. Similarly,
the respondents having no education or illiterate, their percentage were 0.0, while the
respondents having highest school level education, there were of 4.7%, and the
respondents having highest college level education there percentage were 6.7, while the
respondents having highest level of education were university graduate, their percentage
were 87.7%. Likewise, the obtained data were entered and analysed by SPSS.
Key words: Social entrepreneurship, poverty reduction.
Journal of Business and Tourism Volume 04 Number 01
January – June, 2018
Sultan, Ahmad, Khan & Rahman 160 ISSN: 2520 - 0739
1. Introduction
The objective of social entrepreneurship is to address unfair situations characterized by
the deprivation of basic needs where many governmental and philanthropic actions have
fallen in producing the expected results (Daniel & Lenain, 2014). Social entrepreneurship
is an appealing tool when governmental actions have been ineffective, especially in a
post-crisis situation (Daniel & Lenain, 2014). This concept of “social entrepreneurship”
combines development, through creation of sustainable jobs, and a social mission, which
is to resolve social market failures (Daniel & Lenain, 2014). The performance of social
entrepreneurship is measured in the form of societal change as well as benefits done to
the society (Banodia & Dubey, 2017). Either, they may or may not earn profit, may be
voluntary and working for the enablement of the weaker section of the society (Banodia
& Dubey, 2017). In the European context social entrepreneurship is devoted with greater
implication (Dobele, 2012). The fact behind this greater significance may be that poverty,
emigration, unemployment etc. exists in the European economy, for which innovative
solutions are needed which can combine both social as well as economic benefits. In this
situation of facing economic problems, the promotion of social entrepreneurship may
develop a significant platform in resolving these economic problems (Dobele, 2012).
1.1. Problem Statement
As Pakistan is a developing country having the aggressive poverty level i.e. more than
30% of the populace are existing under the poverty line, which is almost 55 million in the
year 2013 (Tahir, et al, 2016). In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 44% of the populace are living
under the line of poverty (Jamal, 2017). Beside this, Daniel, (2014) concluded that social
entrepreneurship appears to be a suitable tool to fight against the poverty. Also from the
review of previous research papers, there is also a gap exists in literature of social
entrepreneurship in the perspective of district Mardan. Hence, this study will try to find
out the role of social entrepreneurship in reducing poverty in district Mardan, and also try
to identify government policies for promoting social entrepreneurship in Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa.
1.2. Significance of the Study The results of this study are expected to be useful for literature on social
entrepreneurship, it will help government and policy makers in policy making; local
private institutions, civil society organizations, international and local organizations, and
general public in order to provide a developmental tool in the poverty reduction in the
area. And also it will contribute to spread this innovative concept “the role of social
entrepreneurship in poverty alleviation in district Mardan”, so that some organizations
can start taking conscious of its potentiality in order to experiment it. Lastly, it will help
giving some concrete actions that can enable its development in the area through poverty
alleviation.
1.3. Objectives of the Study
More specifically, we intend to achieve these objectives at the end of the study:
To well understand the definition of the notion “social entrepreneurship”.
To investigate the role of social entrepreneurship in poverty reduction in district
Mardan.
Journal of Business and Tourism Volume 04 Number 01
January – June, 2018
Sultan, Ahmad, Khan & Rahman 161 ISSN: 2520 - 0739
To identify government polices to promote social entrepreneurship in Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa (supply side).
1.4. Research Hypotheses
H1: Social entrepreneurship has significant role in poverty reduction in district
Mardan.
H2: Social entrepreneurship has significantly related with government policies.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Definition of Social Entrepreneurship
According to Mair and Marti (2006), a great extent of literature emphasis on explaining
the notion of social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurship in the previous period
garnered specific consideration from academics, strategy creators, general public, and
practitioners (Dees, 2007). Martin and Osberg (2007) confirm that there were various
researches done relating to social entrepreneurship and significant discussions have
occurred over the definition of social entrepreneurship. It is key approach to challenge
social changes also to react to them when the public sector and market don‟t (Dees,
2007). Furthermore, social enterprises and social entrepreneurs adopt innovations and
solutions to unresolved social issues, keeping social value conception at the mind of their
goal in order to make advantage to many persons, „societies‟ as well as groups (Dees,
2007). Dees (2001), provided the key concepts regarding social entrepreneurship by
believing that it consist of tracking greatly innovative tactics to solving social problems
and doing so in an accountable, persistent and opportunistic manner. He also suggest that,
innovative tactics are usually performed by NGOs or not-for-profits, but they may also be
imitated by government agencies and also for-profits organizations (Dees, 2001).
By adding the word “social” to entrepreneurship, this means that we are evolving in a
particular context which is social (Dees, 2001). The market does not perform well
because it is not possible to measure properly the value creation related to social products
or services (Dees, 2001). Moreover, the market does not provide the right discipline to
formalize operations; some organizations ask fees for service, others receive funds and
depend on the funder to orientate their actions. Consequently, few agents are involved in
their production. This will contribute to the emergence of the social entrepreneur with a
social, explicit and central mission (Dees, 2001). Martin and Osberg (2007) argue that the
main distinction between social entrepeneurship and entrepreneurship can rely on the
value proposition. Furthermore, the social entrepreneur‟s value intention aims to offer a
service or product to those who are disadvantaged and do not have “business means or
political clout to accomplish the transformative advantage on its own”.
Bacq and Janssen (2011), confirm that social entrepreneurship and commercial
entrepreneurship are differs from each other in two important ways: social
entrepreneurship move forwards by a clear social objective, instead of income
maximizing mission, while the financial income from social businesses are reinvested in
the social objective rather than distributed to investors or reinvested in commercial events
(Bacq & Janssen, 2011).Social entrepreneurship can be defined as “advanced activity
using specific social purpose whether in the profit making business or not-for-profit
organization, or in both” (Defourny & Nyssens, 2010). Numerous researchers delivered
not a similar meanings of social entrepreneurship, which include social value and justice,
practical social and economic structures, building a new balance, employing
Journal of Business and Tourism Volume 04 Number 01
January – June, 2018
Sultan, Ahmad, Khan & Rahman 162 ISSN: 2520 - 0739
improvement, business talents, resolving societal issues, to social entrepreneurs as a
change agent (Zahra, et al, 2009). Zahra, et al. (2009) argue that social entrepreneurship
usually starts with minor, limited struggles, but generally hit social issues which have a
small appearance but universal importance, like access and provision to clean water,
employment, and encouraging creation of small businesses, waste controlling and poverty
alleviation, etc. The innovative solutions that social entrepreneurs validate in their local
context often get replicated in other geographies and can spun new global industries
(Zahra, et al, 2009). Social entrepreneurship is thus having valuable consequences in the
poverty reduction: creating new markets and businesses, allocating resources and
authorizing new business models to neglect social problems (Harding, et al., 2006).
Social entrepreneurship refers to the practice of combining opportunity, innovation and
the exploitation of the available resources to address some of the most challenging
problems: economic, social, and environmental in nature (Schumpeter, 1965). As such, it
is a promising approach to development work that seeks to eliminate the causes of
poverty and environmental degradation (Swinburn, 2008). In order to achieve their
transformational goals, social entrepreneurs start ventures that may be for-profit or non-
profit, though priority is having market-oriented activities that will generate system
changes that will improve the lives of people and the planet (Swinburn, 2008).
2.2 Definition of Poverty
Poverty can be defined as the deficiency of basic needs of human such as clean drinking
water, food, health facilities, education, shelter and sanitation, etc. (Tahir, et al, 2016).
According to Chen and Ravaillon (2008), the generally applied standard in the income
measure approach is 1 US$ per day in Purchasing Power Parity 1985. According to
World Bank, poverty is classified into two categories, i.e. absolute and relative poverty.
At the point when poverty is said to be absolute, it shows as an absence of assets to
encounter the physical requirements for living, an absence of essential security, the lack
of at least one factors that empower people and groups to accept fundamental obligations
and to satisfy key rights (Misango & Ongiti, 2013). While relative poverty can be
considered in connection to specific gatherings or regions in connection to the financial
status of different individuals from the general public which is translated as lack of
resources to reach a way of life that empowers individuals to take parts, take an interest
seeing someone, and carry on with an existence that is considered normative of the
general public to which they belong (Misango & Ongiti, 2013).
Poverty is one of the key difficulties confronting developing as well as underdeveloped
nations. Which is considered as normal issue comes up from the high degree of
joblessness and that has turned into the main barrier of the underdeveloped and
developing nations (Misango & Ongiti, 2013). While the fact that the level and degree of
poverty and joblessness has been seen to be distinctive inside and around the world and it
is still remains the real obstruction to the ideal use of human resources for both social and
financial advancement of the countries (Misango & Ongiti, 2013). According to Misango
and Ongiti (2013), poverty is the consequences of and also lack of not only financial
capital but also lack of quality health, housing, education, employment and other
connected features leading to deprivation. Moreover, the World Bank also accepted that
the main causes of poverty in underdeveloped nations are political instability, lack of
investment, absence of improvement in infrastructure and also lack of improvement in
Journal of Business and Tourism Volume 04 Number 01
January – June, 2018
Sultan, Ahmad, Khan & Rahman 163 ISSN: 2520 - 0739
infrastructure. Pakistan is one of the developing nations confronting the extraordinary
level of poverty having in excess of 33% of its people living beneath the poverty line
(Jan, et al, 2009). In Pakistan, for example, the people who make wage which can't meet
the day by day consumption of around 2350 calories for each individual are considered to
fall under the poverty line. Furthermore, in Pakistan, training in income producing
activities, absence of access to credit, fundamental social facilities and framework are
basic factors behind the ingenuity of considerable poverty, particularly in under-served
urban and rural zones (Jan, et al., 2009).
UNDP in its Human Development Report-2008 spots Pakistan at 136th position, among
177 developing nations of the world, the nation has in more than 2.4 million Afghan
refugees (Rutherford & Tarr, 2008). Different types of poverty win in Pakistan and more
than 73 percent of the populace lives on under US$2 every day. Pakistan, when estimated
on revenue poverty, it positioned beneath than all Central Asian States and even South
Asian states less Nepal and Bangladesh (Siddiqui & Kemal, 2006). Pakistani government
paid out more than 1 trillion Rupees (about $16.7 billion) on poverty reduction agendas
in the previous 5 years, cutting poverty from 35 percent in 2000-01 to 24 percent in 2006.
Officially small level of financial advancement in Pakistan is additionally wrinkled in
rural regions as contrast with major urban zones. Poverty line has indeed remerged to
over 37% of Pakistan's more than 16.7 billion individuals with the beginning of 2009
(Son & Kakwani, 2008).
An investigation on poverty has took Pakistan eye to eye with a truth that it will discover
hard to confess, each third Pakistani is caught in the "poor section" i.e. about in the range
of 58.7 million out of an aggregate populace of 180 million live under the poverty line
(Miankhail, 2009).This incorporates the greater part the populace in the remote
Baluchistan, 33 percent in Sindh, 32 percent in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 19 percent in
Punjab. The Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) study identifies the 20
poorest districts, 16 of which exist in Baluchistan and the other four poorest districts are
located in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Miankhail, 2009). According to the survey of Ministry
of Planning, Development and Reforms of Pakistan, the total population of Pakistan was
195.4 million in 2016 (Population projections for the year 2007-2030), in which
Pakistan‟s new poverty index reveals that 4 out of 10 Pakistanis live in multidimensional
poverty (Jamal, 2017). According to the methodology adopted by the Planning
Commission of Pakistan for poverty estimation, 29.5 percent of the population (55
million) is estimated to live below the poverty line in the year 2013-14 (Jamal, 2017).
According to the report of Dawn News (2016), says that poverty in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
stands at 49 percent, while according to the Express Tribune report (2016), poverty in
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is reducing at a very slow rate as compared to other provinces.
Moreover, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is the only province where the population living below
the poverty line has increased since 2013 (Express Tribune report, 2016).
In the first MDG denotes the reduction of dangerous poverty and deprivation (Economic
Review of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 2015-2016). Moreover, a different sources were
utilized to track poverty frequency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in the last few years. Poverty
in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was assessed at near 29 percent in 2005-06, 7 percent higher
than the national average (Economic Review of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 2015-2016). The
difference was particularly stark when it came to urban poverty, which was recorded at a
Journal of Business and Tourism Volume 04 Number 01
January – June, 2018
Sultan, Ahmad, Khan & Rahman 164 ISSN: 2520 - 0739
relatively low 13.1 percent for Pakistan as a whole, but was almost 10 percent higher for
KP. The KP government estimated poverty for 2009-10, and reported it in the
Comprehensive Development Strategy (CDS) as 39 in a hundred (Economic Review of
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 2015-2016).
2.3. Relationship between social Entrepreneurship and Poverty Reduction
A new way of thinking about doing business or undertaking is getting more and more
attention. This new approach is named social entrepreneurship (Mair & Marti, 2006). Not
only entrepreneurs, civil society, public sector are focusing attention on this concept but
also the academic community is showing its growing interest with production of research
paper devoted to this subject (Mair & Marti, 2006). Formally, this movement has existed
for three decades and appears to spread all around the world nowadays but still, it
remains plagued by confusion. Consequently, we will examine the meaning of the two
concepts, reunited in one, “entrepreneur” and “social” to come to a definition of social
entrepreneurship; present the main characteristics of a social entrepreneur and identify
some common pattern of functioning to social entrepreneurship (Daniel & Lenain, 2014).
Martin and Osberg (2007), stated that due to social problems the social entrepreneurship
came into action, social problems may be poverty, environmental degradation, exclusion
and marginalization. Moreover, in overcoming these societal issues, in the commercial or
entrepreneurial context, the personalities whom utilize their creativity for fighting these
like societal issues by using commercial principles with business features (Martin &
Osberg, 2007). By utilizing such commercial principles with business features in the
business like background then make entrepreneurial results, i.e. social change in deprived
societies. This like societal variations are the impact of social entrepreneurs in efficiency,
advancing the quality of lives of the society, in addition to sustainability of societal as
well as financial development (Sijabat, 2015).
Social entrepreneurship is experienced for poverty reduction, through the help of a
business strategy (Diochon, 2013). “Numerous researches identified that start-up of
business has a positive impression in poverty alleviation” (Ali, et al, 2017). While social
entrepreneurship use an encouraging tactic for eradicating poverty‟s reasons, which
supports in improving the economy. Furthermore, it also helps in making new
organizations which might be not-for-profit or for profit, still there is requirement of
regularly implementation of market oriented practices for improving the social
modification which as a result improves the lives of society (Ali, et al., 2017).Social
entrepreneurship has an explicit ability in the financial economic system (Dorado &
Ventresca, 2013). (Mead & Liedholm, 1998), argue that social entrepreneurship play very
crucial role in sense of raising the financial improvement as well as in lowering the
poverty index in destroyed and low revenue zones of the world. The significance through
social entrepreneurship in lowering the poverty as well as in rising revenue level of
receivers of microcredit are at greatest satisfying (Kareem, 2015).
From the literature it clarifies that by combining both social and profitable talents and
expertise in commercial and business actions, then social entrepreneurs create a massive
impact in confronting the social as well as economic issues of the specific community or
region and hence enable economic opportunities particularly for the poor people in the
society (Sijabat, 2015).
Journal of Business and Tourism Volume 04 Number 01
January – June, 2018
Sultan, Ahmad, Khan & Rahman 165 ISSN: 2520 - 0739
Granovetter (2005), confirm that the growth of social entrepreneurship helps in poverty
reduction with the help of employment by creating new social enterprises and also by
expanding the existing social enterprises in addition it can increase social capital by
generating new social organisations, innovative initiatives for development of society,
new jobs, new institutional forms, and net increases in efficiency (Granovetter, 2005).
According to White & Fortune (2015), social entrepreneurship is now adopting different
business approaches. It also links the commercial and societal actions. Furthermore,
social entrepreneurship utilizes their resources, talents and skills in an entrepreneurial
lens in different social problems which an underdeveloped nation can face, which may be
health, education, personal and social protection, social safety, poverty reduction, social
growth, ecological sustainability, and much more (White & Fortune, 2015).
According to (Cukier, et al, 2009), social entrepreneurship has presented a universal trend
which affects society by means of advanced strategies to explain social issues. Hence,
Duke University‟s Fuqua School of Business, the CASE, i.e. Centre for the Advancement
of Social Entrepreneurship, writes about social entrepreneurship that it is to identify the
strengths for creating societal principles through latest innovative tactics and strategies.
Furthermore, social entrepreneurs having resources of innovation, believers in efficiency
and output, whom have the required skills and abilities in the professions, i.e. in business
and also in social domains to advance the tactics and policies for getting the highest and
effective results in the form of societal impact (Cukier, et al, 2009). The individual
having this type of social mind setup can survive in all varieties of organizations: not-for-
profit, for-profit, and hybrid, small and large; new and old; secular and religious, etc.
(Cukier, et al., 2009).
Social entrepreneurship has profound consequences in the fast rising numeral of
organizations that have generated representations of proficiently providing the access to
fundamental human needs that current institutions and markets have failed to fulfil their
needs (Cukier, et al, 2009). Furthermore, social entrepreneurship combines the
resourcefulness of traditional entrepreneurship with an objective to change society
(Cukier, et al, 2009). Moreover, social entrepreneurship offers visions that might
motivate plans for more socially satisfactory and sustainable commercial approaches and
organizational forms, because, it contributes directly to universally identify sustainable
expansion objectives, social entrepreneurship may also inspire reputable organisations to
take on better social responsibility (Cukier, et al., 2009).
At last, social entrepreneurship concretes the technique to a future that can let upcoming
age groups to fulfil their necessities superior than we are able to fulfil smoothly the
elementary essentials of current populace (Cukier, et al, 2009). Moreover, due to this,
social entrepreneurship is having deep consequences in the economic growth: authorizing
fresh business models, producing new industries, and re-aiming resources to ignored
social issues. The World Bank motivate social entrepreneurs by poverty-reducing plans
into interact through associates which have the assets to benefit them in implementing
their plans. In 2003 James Wolfensohn, World Bank‟s Head, granted a huge amount of
US$60 lac in seed money to be shared among 47 minor-scale, new improvement plans in
27 nations (Cukier, et al., 2009).
Journal of Business and Tourism Volume 04 Number 01
January – June, 2018
Sultan, Ahmad, Khan & Rahman 166 ISSN: 2520 - 0739
3. Research Methodology
The present study is quantitative in nature, the survey method for data collection was
used. Among Mono, Mixed and Multi methodologies the researcher has chosen the Mono
method. Through reference to time horizon, the study nature is cross-sectional. In cross-
sectional studies, the data from defendants is gathered just on a single point in time and
that is used for further investigation (Owolabi, 2003). While some studies need
researchers to gather data at different periods for getting a conclusion, so if data is
collected more than once from defendants, such studies are longitudinal studies
(Owolabi, 2003). The participants were selected randomly and were contacted in
different organizations, like social welfare foundations and charitable trusts, non-profit
organizations, associations, NGOs, etc. operating in district Mardan. The organizations
selected for the study are Awaz Welfare Foundation Mardan, Human & Social
Development Organization Mardan, Initiative for Development & Empowerment, Human
Development Foundation, National Rural Support Program and Markaz Islah Darul
Yateem Mardan. The data was collected from the social entrepreneurs of these
organizations, to have the accurate result of the role of social entrepreneurship in poverty
reduction in the selected area. The participants have different demographic backgrounds
and experience level.
To attain the objectives of this research, the results will be made on the findings of
primary data by developing a questionnaire for collecting data from the targeted sample.
The questionnaire is developed questionnaire from the study of Ali & Ali, (2013). The
questionnaire consists of 5 sections; the first section is about demographics of the
respondents, the second section is about the attitude of the respondents regarding social
entrepreneurship, the third section is about the attitude of the respondents regarding
poverty, the forth section is about the attitude of the respondents regarding social
entrepreneurship and poverty reduction and the last section is about the attitude of the
respondents regarding government policies for promoting social entrepreneurship. The
questionnaire relies on a five-point Likert scale, from the range 1- strongly disagree to 5-
strongly agree, and will be analyzed through software SPSS-16.
4. Linear Regression Analysis and Discussion
To investigate the role of social entrepreneurship in poverty reduction in district Mardan
and to identify government policies for promoting social entrepreneurship in Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa, linear regression analysis allows us to test the Models and find the impact
of single Independent Variable (IV) on single Dependent Variable (DV).
To predict the value of DV (poverty reduction) based on the value of independent
variable (social entrepreneurship) the following formula was designed for the Linear
Regression Equation:
In the case of social entrepreneurship-poverty reduction relationship:
is denoting poverty reduction, which is also designated as dependent variable,
is constant term, and is regression coefficient or slope while is social
entrepreneurship which is also independent variable of the model, while is representing
the error term in the model.
While in case of government policies-social entrepreneurship relationship:
Journal of Business and Tourism Volume 04 Number 01
January – June, 2018
Sultan, Ahmad, Khan & Rahman 167 ISSN: 2520 - 0739
is representing social entrepreneurship, which is also the DV in the model. While
is constant term, and is regression coefficient or slope while is denoting
government policies which is also independent variable of the model, while is
representing the error term in the model.
4.1. Results and Discussion
The objectives of the study was to identify the role of social entrepreneurship in poverty
reduction in district Mardan and also to identify government policies for promoting social
entrepreneurship in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. For obtaining these objectives a questionnaire
was distributed among 200 social entrepreneurs whose were providing their services in
different social organizations like NGOs, social welfare foundations, etc. and in response
we received a total number of 150 completed questionnaires which indicates that the
response rate was 75%.
4.1.1. Demographic Analysis
The study followed demographic analysis to find out the dynamics in the populace.
Demographic data include gender of the respondent, age, marital status, level of
education of the respondent, job title and experience in years.
Table 1: Gender of the Respondent
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Male 103 68.7 68.7 68.7
Female 47 31.3 31.3 100.0
Total 150 100.0 100.0
Table 1 represent the gender of the respondents, the total respondents for the study were
150. There were 103 male and 47 female respondents. The percentage of male
respondents were 68.7 and the percentage of female respondents were 31.3.
Table 2: Age of the Respondent
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Under 20 3 2.0 2.0 2.0
20-30 97 64.7 64.7 66.7
31-40 25 16.7 16.7 83.3
41-50 19 12.7 12.7 96.0
Above 50 6 4.0 4.0 100.0
Total 150 100.0 100.0
Table 2 represent the age of the respondent in years. In total 150 respondents the age of
the respondents who‟s age were under 20, their frequency were only 3 with percentage of
2.0. The respondents of age 20 to 30, their frequency were 97 with 64.7%. While the age
of the respondents between 31 and 40, their frequency were 25 with 16.7 percentage, and
the age of the respondents from 41 to 50, their frequency were 19 with 12.7%, and the
respondents having age more than 50 years, their frequency were 6 frequency with 4.0%.
Journal of Business and Tourism Volume 04 Number 01
January – June, 2018
Sultan, Ahmad, Khan & Rahman 168 ISSN: 2520 - 0739
Table 3: Marital Status of the Respondents
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Single 83 55.3 55.3 55.3
Married 67 44.7 44.7 100.0
Total 150 100.0 100.0
Table 3 represent the respondent‟s marital status. In total 150 respondents, the frequency
of single respondents were 83 with 55.3% and the frequency for married respondents
were 67 with 44.7%.
Table 4: Highest Level of Education of the Respondent
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid School Level 7 4.7 4.7 4.7
College Level 10 6.7 6.7 11.3
University
Graduate 133 88.7 88.7 100.0
Total 150 100.0 100.0
Table 4 represent the respondent‟s highest level of education. From total 150
respondents, there were no frequency of illiterate respondent so their percentage is 0.0.
And the respondents having highest school level education were 7 with 4.7%. The
respondents having highest college level education were of 10 frequency with 6.7%. And
the frequency of university graduate respondents were of 133 with 88.7%.
Table 5: Job title of the Respondent
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Owner 11 7.3 7.3 7.3
Manager 48 32.0 32.0 39.3
Office
Assistant/Supervisor 91 60.7 60.7 100.0
Total 150 100.0 100.0
Table 5 represent the respondent‟s job title. In total 150 respondents, the owner‟s
frequency were 11 with 7.3%, while the manager‟s frequency were 48 with 32.0% while
the frequency of office assistant or supervisor were 91 with 60.0%.
Journal of Business and Tourism Volume 04 Number 01
January – June, 2018
Sultan, Ahmad, Khan & Rahman 169 ISSN: 2520 - 0739
Table 6: Experience of the Respondents
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Less than 5 years 92 61.3 61.3 61.3
6-10 years 26 17.3 17.3 78.7
11-15yeasrs 19 12.7 12.7 91.3
More than 15 years 13 8.7 8.7 100.0
Total 150 100.0 100.0
Table 6 represent the experience of the respondents. In total 150 respondents, the
frequency of respondents having less than 5 years of experience were 92 with 61.3%.
And the frequency of respondents with experience 6 to 10 years were 26 with 17.3%, and
the respondents having 11 to 15 years of experience, their frequency were 19 with 12.7%.
And the frequency of respondents with more than 15 years of experience were 13 with
8.7%.
Table 7: Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .601a .361 .356 .28563
a. Predictors: (Constant), Social Entrepreneurship
b. Dependent Variable: Poverty Reduction
Table 7 represent regression analysis, in the above table, R shows the value of correlation
of the model. In which the value of R is .601, shows the prediction quality of the
dependent variable. Which shows a good relationship and prediction level. Which shows
that in social entrepreneurship and poverty reduction there is 60% relationship. In the
above table, the value of R Square is .361 which represents the quantity of change in the
poverty reduction affected by social entrepreneurship. The value of adjusted R Square is
.356, which shows that 35% variation is caused by social entrepreneurship, which is also
in good acceptable range.
Table 8: ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 6.813 1 6.813 83.506 .000a
Residual 12.074 148 .082
Total 18.887 149
a. Predictors: (Constant), Social Entrepreneurship
b. Dependent Variable: Poverty Reduction
The ANOVA table 8, describes the statistical fitness and significance of the data
into the regression model. In the table 8, F(1, 148) = 83.506 and significance value is
.000, shows that data fits well in regression model and the independent variable is good
Journal of Business and Tourism Volume 04 Number 01
January – June, 2018
Sultan, Ahmad, Khan & Rahman 170 ISSN: 2520 - 0739
and statistically significant predictors of the dependent variable i.e. poverty reduction is
significantly predicted by social entrepreneurship.
Table 9: Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.622 .251 6.464 .000
Social
Entrepreneurship .593 .065 .601 9.138 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Poverty Reduction
The table 9, coefficients, shows the strength of the relationship between independent with
the dependent variable. In the above table Beta value of social entrepreneurship is 1.622
with corresponding t value 9.138 and significance of 0.00 is statistically significant
means that if there is 1% or one unit increase in social entrepreneurship then poverty
reduction will increase by 0.593 units or 59.3%. The model is said to be fit. The results
indicated a significant positive relationship exists between poverty reduction and social
entrepreneurship, and hence hypothesis “H1” is supported.
4.1.2. Descriptive Analysis
Table 10: Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Poverty Reduction 3.9047 .35603 150
Social Entrepreneurship 3.8481 .36044 150
Table 10 shows the descriptive analysis. Which contains descriptive statistics. The study
used mean to find the central point and standard deviation to find the spread and variation
in the data. The above table 10 shows the value of mean and standard deviation. The
values of all variables were above 3, which shows that the mean value for all the
variables were normal.
4.1.3. Reliability Analysis
Table 11: Reliability Statistics
S.No Variable Cronbach‟s Alpha Reliable Non-Reliable
1. Social
Entrepreneurship
.860 Reliable -
2. Poverty Reduction .874 Reliable -
3. Government Policies .633 Reliable -
Table 11 displays Cronbach‟s Alpha. In the study there are three variables, i.e. social
entrepreneurship, poverty reduction and government policies for promoting social
entrepreneurship. For reliability finding, Cronbach Alpha was used, i.e. reliability
coefficient. The value of Cronbach‟s alpha is between 0 and 1, in which the greater value
indicates greater reliability. The Cronbach‟s alpha for the variables in this study are 0.860
for social entrepreneurship, 0.874 for poverty reduction and 0.633 for government
Journal of Business and Tourism Volume 04 Number 01
January – June, 2018
Sultan, Ahmad, Khan & Rahman 171 ISSN: 2520 - 0739
policies for promoting social entrepreneurship. The results of reliability analysis indicates
that the data is reliable, while according to Nunnally and Bernstein (1978), the minimum
benchmark for social sciences must be greater than 0.60.
Table 12: Model Summaryb
Model R
R
Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std.
Error of
the
Estimate
Change Statistics
Durbin-
Watson
R
Square
Change
F
Change df1 df2
Sig. F
Change
1 .605a .366 .362 .28786 .366 85.612 1 1.E2 .000 1.627
a. Predictors: (Constant), Promoting Policies
b. Dependent Variable: Social Entrepreneurship
Table 12 shows regression analysis, in which the R shows the correlational value of the
model, which is .605, shows dependent variable prediction quality. Shows a good
prediction and relationship level. Representing that there is 60% relationship between
government policies and social entrepreneurship. The R Square value is .366 which
shows the proportion of change in the social entrepreneurship caused by the government
policies. The adjusted R Square value is .362. This explains 36% change is caused by the
independent variable. The adjusted R Square value is also in good acceptable range.
Table 13: ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 7.094 1 7.094 85.612 .000a
Residual 12.264 148 .083
Total 19.358 149
a. Predictors: (Constant), Promoting Policies
b. Dependent Variable: Social Entrepreneurship
The ANOVA table 13, explains the statistical significance and fitness of the data into the
regression model. In the above table F(1, 148) = 85.612 and significance value is .000
(p< .005) shows that data fits well in regression model and the independent variables are
good and statistically significant predictors of the dependent variables i.e. social
entrepreneurship is significantly predicted by government policies.
Table 14: Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.900 .212 8.973 .000
Promoting
Policies .480 .052 .605 9.253 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Social
Entrepreneurship
Journal of Business and Tourism Volume 04 Number 01
January – June, 2018
Sultan, Ahmad, Khan & Rahman 172 ISSN: 2520 - 0739
The Coefficients table 14 shows the strength of the relationship between independent
variable with the dependent variable. In the above table government policies Beta value is
1.900 with corresponding t value 8.973 and significance of p<.05 is statistically
significant means that if there is one unit or 1% increase in government policies then
social entrepreneurship will increase by 0.446 units or 48.0%. The model is said to be fit.
The results indicated a significant positive relationship exists between government
policies and social entrepreneurship, and hence hypothesis “H2” is also supported.
Hypothesis results
Hypotheses
Number
Hypothesis Description Model 1
H1.1.1 Social entrepreneurship has significant role in
poverty reduction in district Mardan.
Accepted
H1.1.2 Social entrepreneurship has significantly related
with government policies.
Accepted
Analysis of models confirmed that there has a significant and positive relationship
between social entrepreneurship and poverty reduction in the context of district Mardan
and the analysis also confirmed the second hypothesis of the study that social
entrepreneurship has significantly related with government policies and hence both of the
hypothesis for the study has been accepted by the analysis.
5. Conclusion
In the context of district Mardan it is confirmed on the basis of analysis that social
entrepreneurship has significantly and positively associated with poverty reduction and
also confirmed that the promotion of social entrepreneurship is significantly related to
government policies. The past studies (qualitative and quantitative) also confirmed that
social entrepreneurship is a suitable tool to fight against the poverty. The quantitative
study of Chebbi (2016) also concluded that social entrepreneurship has a strong positive
relationship between poverty alleviation. While the qualitative studies of Daniel &
Lenain (2014) and Connor, R., Bent-Goodley, & B.T, (2016) also concluded that social
entrepreneurship has a significant role to alleviate poverty and to promote community
growth.
5.1. Practical and Policy Implication of Research: The uniqueness of the study recommends numerous courses of action for social
organisations, NGOs, general public, government, management and policy makers. The
outcomes of the study recommend that social entrepreneurs, government, NGOs ought to
identify the significance of social entrepreneurship to develop strategies and tactics to
alleviate poverty. The findings of this study and the previous researches in the social
entrepreneurship-poverty reduction relationship confirm that social entrepreneurship is a
tool to fight against poverty and to promote community growth.
References
Adekunle, I., & Agboola, (2017). The Role of Social Entrepreneurship in Enabling
Economic. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Development, Education
and Science Research/IJEDESR, 4(2), 23-35.
Journal of Business and Tourism Volume 04 Number 01
January – June, 2018
Sultan, Ahmad, Khan & Rahman 173 ISSN: 2520 - 0739
Ali, A., Alam, K., & Lodhi, N. (2017). Students intentions towards entrepreneurship:
Pakistani perspective. NICE Research Journal of Social Science. ISSN: 2219-
4282, 7(14), 154-176.
Ali, D. A., & Ali, A. Y. (2013). Entrepreneurship development and poverty reduction:
Empirical survey from Somalia. American International Journal of Social
Science, 2(3), 108-113.
Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review
of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(5-6), 373-403.
Banodia, S., & Dubey, N. (2017). Role of social entrepreneurs as social change agents: an
insight. Research Journal of Management Sciences, 6(2), 19-22.
Chen, S., & Ravallion, M. (2010). The developing world is poorer than we thought, but
no less successful in the fight against poverty. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 125(4), 1577-1625.
Cukier, W., Rodrigues, S., & Trenholm, S. (2009). Social entrepreneurship: a content
analysis. United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Conference Proceedings (p. 776).
Daniel, M. E., & Lenain, P. (2014). The role of social entrepreneurship in the fight
against poverty, exclusion and marginalization in Haiti.
Dees. (2001). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Duke University.
Dees, J. G. (2007). Taking social entrepreneurship seriously. Society, 44(3), 24-31.
Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social
entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and
divergences. Journal of social entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32-53.
Diochon, M. (2013). Social entrepreneurship and effectiveness in poverty alleviation: A
case study of a Canadian First Nations community. Journal of Social
Entrepreneurship, 4(3), 302-330.
Dobele, L. (2012). Social entrepreneurship problems and solutions: a case study of
Latvia. West East Journal of Social Sciences, 1(1), 11-25.
Dorado, S., & Ventresca, M. J. (2013). Crescive entrepreneurship in complex social
problems: Institutional conditions for entrepreneurial engagement. Journal of
Business Venturing, 28(1), 69-82.
Granovetter, M. (2005). The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. Journal of
economic perspectives, 19(1), 33-50.
Harding, A., McNamara, J., Tanton, R., Daly, A., & Yap, M. (2006). Poverty and
disadvantage among Australian children: A spatial perspective. National Centre
for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM).
Jamal, H. (2017). Poverty and Vulnerability Estimates: Pakistan, 2016. Social Policy and
Development Centre (SPDC).
Jan, D., Eberle, P. R., Jan, A., & Ali, G. (2009). Absolute poverty in Pakistan: Where are
the poor concentrated. Sarhad J. Agric, 25(2), 321-327.
Kareem, R. O. (2015). Impact of entrepreneurship on poverty alleviation. Journal of
Business Administration and Education, 7(1).
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation,
prediction, and delight. Journal of world business, 41(1), 36-44.
Journal of Business and Tourism Volume 04 Number 01
January – June, 2018
Sultan, Ahmad, Khan & Rahman 174 ISSN: 2520 - 0739
Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition.
Stanford: Stanford social innovation review, 5(2), 28-39.
Mead, D. C., & Liedholm, C. (1998). The dynamics of micro and small enterprises in
developing countries. World development, 26(1), 61-74.
Miankhail, S. B. (2009). Causes & Consequences of Poverty in Pakistan. Journal of
Finance and Economics, 2, 2-44.
Misango, S. B., & Ongiti, O. (2013). Do women entrepreneurs play a role in reducing
poverty? A case in Kenya. International Review of Management and Business
Research, 2(1), 87-103.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1978). Psychometric theory.
Owolabi, S. (2003). The adequacy of sample size in educational research.
Rutherford, T. F., & Tarr, D. G. (2008). Poverty effects of Russia's WTO accession:
Modeling “real” households with endogenous productivity effects. Journal of
International Economics. 75(1), 131-150.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1965). Economic Theory and Entrepreneurial History. In: Aitken HG
(ed) Explorations in enterprise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Siddiqui, R., & Kemal, A. R. (2006). Remittances, trade liberalisation, and poverty in
Pakistan: The role of excluded variables in poverty change analysis. The Pakistan
Development Review, 383-415.
Sijabat, R. (2015). The Role of Social Entrepreneurship in Enabling Economic
Opportunities for the Poor: A Synthesis of the Literature and Empirical Works.
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 6(11), 35-41.
Son, H. H., & Kakwani, N. (2008). Global estimates of pro-poor growth. World
Development, 36(6), 1048-1066.
Swinburn, G. (2008). Local Economic Development: A Primer Developing and
Implementing Local Economic Development Strategies and Action Plans.
Washington D.C.: World Bank.
Tahir, M., Khilji, B. A., Hussain, S. W., & Hussain, I. (2016). Impact of Punjab Rural
Support Program on Poverty Alleviation: Case study of District Mandi
Bahauddin. Business & Economic Review, 8((SE)), 53-66.
White, S., & Fortune, P. (2015). Business environment reform and poverty: Rapid
evidence assessment.
Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A typology of
social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of
business venturing, 24(5), 519-532.